Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 5:48:07 GMT -8
Well, Hyvemynd said that about as well as I ever could ever.
So, as far as other things go, anyone else think they're going to flub the game completely up on economics and equipment? What you did with your gold was a strange meta-system on the game that had almost nothing to do with the game world in 4.0, so I'm wondering if they'll manage to re-link that effectively with the game in 5e.
I might be alone in this, but usually I want a mostly functional fantasy economy. I want the prices for goods to scale up from candles to houses, and I want prices for a typical example of each.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 7, 2012 8:04:15 GMT -8
I *think* what we're seeing right now is the game that doesn't consider organized play at all.
As SirGuido illustrated in our last episode, there are some real douchebag DMs in organized play, and I think the very regimented nature of DnD4e was Wizards' attempt to insulate players in organized play from those douchey DMs.
I think this "modularity" they're talking about might be a response to the push-back from players who *don't* play in RPGA, and don't experience the problems of GM abuse.
Perhaps, what we see with the skill system will be the default, but they might add an optional, more regimented skill system for use in organized play.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Jun 7, 2012 14:43:48 GMT -8
I've always been a skills fan, from Rifts to 3.5 to Savage Worlds. I've found that they can be used to help with narrative, and also with getting some people out of their shell and into contributing to the party. Just seed each player with a few skills no one else has, or look at the skill list they have and create game events where the skills they've already chosen are needed.
With 2nd Edition I always played with the non-weapon proficiency sets, which were basically a skill list. I was very happy when it was expanded on and fleshed out in the 3.X rules.
That's my barrier to becoming a full time 0D&D clone gamer. I actually like skills. I'm never going to accept that skills limit role playing and skills being the death of old school gaming. It is always about how you present them. If they're going to slow down the power creep, then allowing the players to improve skills each level will still keep the leveling an event, and not a passing note.
(Edit)
Hmm. When I say skill, I mean the non-combat stuff. Gemcutting, basket weaving, fletching, blacksmithing. Crafting skills and knowledge checks.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Jun 7, 2012 19:24:05 GMT -8
I played it last night and had lots of fun. I played the halfling rogue pre-gen PC. (Actually, there were six players at the table, so we wound up with two rogues. We decided our characters were twins and proceeded to channel the twin drivers in Oceans 11.) I've played very little actual D&D in my time, so I don't have much to compare it with, but I enjoyed it. That's the important thing, really, right?
Regarding skills, I suspect they mostly want to test out combat for now. Presumably there will be further playtest releases in the future, with other parts of the game more fleshed out?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 7, 2012 20:06:19 GMT -8
Part of the reason I was disappointed with D&D 4e was due to it's compression of skills. I loved the 3.x skill point system and the wealth of skills that edition had. My female barbarian PC actually had the points in Perform to represent her ability to recite the epic poems and battle sagas of her people. I loved that. That being said, there were a few too many skills in 3.x and I did like how some of them were combined into one skill in 4e. Swim, Jump, and CLimb didn't need to be separate. Rolling them all into Athletics was fine.
Completely dropping Perform, Craft, and other obvious non-combat related skills was *not* fine with me however. Coupled with the fact that the 4e rules didn't provide any framework or suggestions on how to handle things like this, meant it was a very combat-focused system. "We should build catapults to defend the city! What skill do I use? Hey, uh there's no craft skill. So... we just handwave it away and say we do it then?" That was never very satisfying at all. Yes, big stuff like that doesn't really need rules to cover it, but sometimes you want to know how well you do something instead of just deciding on the outcome yourself.
That't why I like the new Ability Checks. Are they innovative? No. Other systems have had similar rules for a while now. I feel like D&D is still behind the curve, which is kind of understandable since they have to be the "face" of the hobby and can't do anything really radical. Still, it's nice to see them finally catching up a bit.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 7, 2012 22:42:25 GMT -8
Skills were always Ability Score checks in AD&D 1e. Constitution of 18 = Stamina of 90% (checks against "normal" not "superhuman" threats) or a +4 on something using the ability. This also applied to stabilize checks. And from those bare bones, much was accomplished.
|
|